Missing data imputation can help improve the performance of prediction models in situations where missing data hide useful information. This paper compares methods for imputing missing categorical data for supervised classification tasks. We experiment on two machine learning benchmark datasets with missing categorical data, comparing classifiers trained on non-imputed (i.e., one-hot encoded) or imputed data with different levels of additional missing-data perturbation. We show imputation methods can increase predictive accuracy in the presence of missing-data perturbation, which can actually improve prediction accuracy by regularizing the classifier. We achieve the state-of-the-art on the Adult dataset with missing-data perturbation and k-nearest-neighbors (k-NN) imputation.

It is a simple algorithm which can be used as a performance baseline. This algorithm methodology is used mostly for forecasting and finding out cause and effect relationship between data variables. Its purpose from a database is to read the data points which are separated into several classes and then predict the new sample point classification. It gives great results when used for textual data analysis. It is an unsupervised learning used in unlabelled data sources. However, it is mostly used in classification cases.

Machine Learning training bootcamp is a 3-day specialized training course that covers the essentials of machine learning, a shape and utilization of man-made reasoning (AI). Machine learning computerizes the information investigation process by empowering PCs, machines and IoT to learn and adjust through experience connected to particular undertakings without unequivocal programming. Learning Objectives: Learn about Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning List similarities and differences between AI, Machine Learning and Data Mining Learn how Artificial Intelligence uses data to offer solutions to existing problems Explore how Machine Learning goes beyond AI to offer data necessary for a machine to learn, adapt and optimize / Clarify how Data Mining can serve as foundation for AI and machine learning to use existing information to highlight patterns List the various applications of machine learning and related algorithms Learn how to classify the types of learning such as supervised and unsupervised learning Implement supervised learning techniques such as linear and logistic regression Use unsupervised learning algorithms including deep learning, clustering and recommender systems (RS) used to help users find new items or services, such as books, music, transportation, people and jobs based on information about the user or the recommended item Learn about classification data and Machine Learning models Select the best algorithms applied to Machine Learning Make accurate predictions and analysis to effectively solve potential problems List Machine Learning concepts, principles, algorithms, tools and applications Learn the concepts and operation of support neural networks, vector machines, kernel SVM, naive bayes, decision tree classifier, random forest classifier, logistic regression, K-nearest neighbors, K-means and clustering Comprehend the theoretical concepts and how they relate to the practical aspects of machine learning / Be able to model a wide variety of robust machine learning algorithms including deep learning, clustering and recommendation systems Course Agenda and Topics: The Basics of Machine Learning Machine Learning Techniques, Tools and Algorithms Data and Data Science Review of Terminology and Principles Applied Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning Popular Machine Learning Methods Learning Applied to Machine Learning Principal component Analysis Principles of Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms Principles of Unsupervised Machine Learning Regression Applied to Machines Learning Principles of Neural Networks Large Scale Machine Learning Introduction to Deep Learning Applying Machine Learning Overview of Algorithms Overview of Tools and Processes Request More Information .

Machine learning algorithms can help scientists predict chemical toxicity to a similar degree of accuracy as animal testing, according to a paper published this week in Toxicological Sciences. A whopping €3bn (over $3.5bn) is spent every year to study how the negative impacts of chemicals on animals like rats, rabbits or monkeys. The top nine most frequently tested safety experiments resulted in the death of the poor critters 57 per cent of the time in Europe in 2011. By using software, chemists may be able to spend less on animal testing and save more creatures. To demonstrate this, first, a team of researchers scoured through a range of databases to label 80,908 different chemicals.

This paper proposes an approach to detect emotion from human speech employing majority voting technique over several machine learning techniques. The contribution of this work is in two folds: firstly it selects those features of speech which is most promising for classification and secondly it uses the majority voting technique that selects the exact class of emotion. Here, majority voting technique has been applied over Neural Network (NN), Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine (SVM) and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN). Input vector of NN, DT, SVM and KNN consists of various acoustic and prosodic features like Pitch, Mel-Frequency Cepstral coefficients etc. From speech signal many feature have been extracted and only promising features have been selected. To consider a feature as promising, Fast Correlation based feature selection (FCBF) and Fisher score algorithms have been used and only those features are selected which are highly ranked by both of them. The proposed approach has been tested on Berlin dataset of emotional speech [3] and Electromagnetic Articulography (EMA) dataset [4]. The experimental result shows that majority voting technique attains better accuracy over individual machine learning techniques. The employment of the proposed approach can effectively recognize the emotion of human beings in case of social robot, intelligent chat client, call-center of a company etc.

This paper studies a stylized, yet natural, learning-to-rank problem and points out the critical incorrectness of a widely used nearest neighbor algorithm. We consider a model with $n$ agents (users) $\{x_i\}_{i \in [n]}$ and $m$ alternatives (items) $\{y_j\}_{j \in [m]}$, each of which is associated with a latent feature vector. Agents rank items nondeterministically according to the Plackett-Luce model, where the higher the utility of an item to the agent, the more likely this item will be ranked high by the agent. Our goal is to find neighbors of an arbitrary agent or alternative in the latent space. We first show that the Kendall-tau distance based kNN produces incorrect results in our model. Next, we fix the problem by introducing a new algorithm with features constructed from "global information" of the data matrix. Our approach is in sharp contrast to most existing feature engineering methods. Finally, we design another new algorithm identifying similar alternatives. The construction of alternative features can be done using "local information," highlighting the algorithmic difference between finding similar agents and similar alternatives.

An unsupervised learning classification model is described. It achieves classification error probability competitive with that of popular supervised learning classifiers such as SVM or kNN. The model is based on the incremental execution of small step shift and rotation operations upon selected discriminative hyperplanes at the arrival of input samples. When applied, in conjunction with a selected feature extractor, to a subset of the ImageNet dataset benchmark, it yields 6.2 % Top 3 probability of error; this exceeds by merely about 2 % the result achieved by (supervised) k-Nearest Neighbor, both using same feature extractor. This result may also be contrasted with popular unsupervised learning schemes such as k-Means which is shown to be practically useless on same dataset.

In this paper, we analyze the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer Data using Machine Learning classification techniques, such as the SVM, Bayesian Logistic Regression (Variational Approximation), and K-Nearest-Neighbors. We describe each model, and compare their performance through different measures. We conclude that SVM has the best performance among all other classifiers, while it competes closely with the Bayesian Logistic Regression that is ranked second best method for this dataset.

Many modern machine learning models are trained to achieve zero or near-zero training error in order to obtain near-optimal (but non-zero) test error. This phenomenon of strong generalization performance for "overfitted" / interpolated classifiers appears to be ubiquitous in high-dimensional data, having been observed in deep networks, kernel machines, boosting and random forests. Their performance is robust even when the data contain large amounts of label noise. Very little theory is available to explain these observations. The vast majority of theoretical analyses of generalization allows for interpolation only when there is little or no label noise. This paper takes a step toward a theoretical foundation for interpolated classifiers by analyzing local interpolating schemes, including geometric simplicial interpolation algorithm and weighted $k$-nearest neighbor schemes. Consistency or near-consistency is proved for these schemes in classification and regression problems. These schemes have an inductive bias that benefits from higher dimension, a kind of "blessing of dimensionality". Finally, connections to kernel machines, random forests, and adversarial examples in the interpolated regime are discussed.

We aim to predict whether an employee of a company will leave or not, using the k-Nearest Neighbors algorithm. We use evaluation of employee performance, average monthly hours at work and number of years spent in the company, among others, as our features. Other approaches to this problem include the use of ANNs, decision trees and logistic regression. The dataset was split, using 70% for training the algorithm and 30% for testing it, achieving an accuracy of 94.32%.